Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

3 Responses to “Jobs Files for State Supreme Court Review in Jackling House Case”

1. Steve Palm says:

   February 24, 2007 at 7:21 PM

   What I don’t understand is why it’s OK for an outside group or agency to tell someone who has spent money to purchase something what they can do with it.

   If they wanted it preserved, why did they not buy it?

   If they still want it preserved, it shouldn’t cost the owner ANYTHING. They should reimburse him for the fair market value as if he had sold it outright, move it at THEIR expense, and then let him do what he will.

   And please, if we start getting into the habit of trying to preserve every work of every architect who ever builds something, nobody will be able to ever do anything with their property again. Times change, times move on, let it go.

   Reply
2. Richard Silverstein says:

   February 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM

   What I don’t understand is why it’s OK for an outside group or agency to tell someone who has spent money to purchase something what they can do with it.

   “Outside” what? Jobs’ property? The State of California? If you’re a citizen of the United States your behavior generally conforms to the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Jobs, as a resident of California, has the same responsibility as all other residents of that State. If he doesn’t like the laws he can try to change them, or move to another country or another state where they’re more conducive.

   If they wanted it preserved, why did they not buy it?

   He’s not selling. He wants to wreck it, not sell it.

   If they still want it preserved, it shouldn’t cost the owner ANYTHING.

   You need to move to California, become a resident, run for state office, become governor, change the laws and then you can live there happily. Till then, the state will live in a state of errancy as far as you’re concerned.

   if we start getting into the habit of trying to preserve every work of every architect who ever builds something, nobody will be able to ever do anything with their property again.

   Jackling House is not “every work” & George Washington Smith is not “every architect.” The nation’s foremost historic preservation organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation determines that both the house and the architect are significant to the architectural legacy of the State of California.

   Or are you saying that you have some expertise on this score that they don’t?

   Reply
3. Dave Clarkson says:

   March 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM

   What is the deal with this guy? People offer to take something off his hands and get it out of his way so he can build what he wants, but he’s stubbornly set on the destruction of something other people in his community love for no other apparent reason than to prove to everyone that he does whatever he wants. I really think this is a symptom of some mental problem. Or at least of extreme immaturity.

   Reply